project no. 6-917-18096-0 ms. sydney thiel project manager
TRANSCRIPT
11810 North Creek Parkway N Bothell, Washington 98011 (425) 368-1000 Phone (425) 368-1001 Facsimile www.amecfw.com \\SEA-FS1\WordProc\_Projects\18000s\18096 Central Kitsap School District\Central Kitsap HS-MS Prelim Report 161018.docx
October 18, 2016 Project No. 6-917-18096-0 Ms. Sydney Thiel Project Manager Central Kitsap School District #401 9102 Dickey Road NW Silverdale, Washington 98383 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Central Kitsap High School and Middle School Campus Redevelopment 10130 Frontier Place NW and 3700 NW Anderson Hill Road Silverdale, Washington 98311 Dear Ms. Thiel:
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler), is pleased to submit
this report describing our preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Central Kitsap High
School and Middle School campus redevelopment. Our report also integrates Amec Foster Wheeler’s
past exploration work at the project site to supplement our recent subsurface findings. The purpose of
our evaluation was to derive preliminary conclusions and recommendations concerning earthwork,
foundations, floors, retaining walls, utilities, paving, and stormwater infiltration for the planned campus
redevelopment.
As outlined in our proposal letter dated July 11, 2016, our scope of work included field exploration,
laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering, and report preparation. This report has been prepared for
the exclusive use of Central Kitsap School District #401 (CKSD) and their consultants for specific
application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this
report, or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Todd Wentworth, P.E.
Associate Geotechnical Engineer
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Central Kitsap High School and Middle School Campus Redevelopment
10130 Frontier Place NW and 3700 NW Anderson Hill Road
Silverdale, Washington
Prepared for:
Central Kitsap School District #401
9102 Dickey Road NW
Silverdale, Washington 98383
Prepared by:
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
11810 North Creek Parkway N
Bothell, Washington 98011
October 18, 2016
Project No. 6-917-18096-0
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler), performed a
preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Central Kitsap High School and Middle School
(CKHS/MS) campus redevelopment project on behalf of Central Kitsap School District #401 (CKSD).
This summary of project geotechnical engineering considerations is presented for introductory
purposes and should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report.
Project Description: Currently CKSD is considering three different schematic site plans for the new
school campus configuration. In general, a combined high school and middle school building will be
centrally located. Athletic fields will be reconfigured and/or improved, and new parking and bus
access routes around the new school building will be provided off of NW Anderson Hill Road and
Frontier Place NW. Stormwater detention facilities will be located within the southwest area of the
campus.
Exploratory Methods: We explored subsurface conditions at the site by drilling 15 borings (B-1
thorough B-15) and advancing five hand augers (HB-1 through HB-5) on August 15 and 16, 2016, at
strategic locations across the site. Our borings ranged in depth from 16.5 to 26.5 feet below the
ground surface (bgs), while our hand borings ranged from 2.75 to 4.3 feet bgs. This report also
includes data from 11 borings and four test pit exploration logs from earlier work at the site and two
test pit exploration logs previously advanced adjacent to the east side of the school property.
Soil Conditions: Previous development of the site included cuts and fills to create terraces, as
confirmed by our recent explorations which encountered 4 to 8 feet of fill in some of our explorations.
The fill was medium dense, silty sand, and appears to be derived from on-site cut soils. The native,
intact soil consisted of very dense, gravelly silty sand (Glacial Till) and was encountered in most of the
explorations. In the southwest portion of the site, very dense sand (Advance Outwash) was
encountered in the southwest portion of the site.
Groundwater Conditions: At the time of exploration (August 15 and 16, 2016), boring B-15, advanced
in the southwest parking lot, encountered groundwater at approximately 18 feet below the ground
surface. None of the other borings encountered groundwater at the time of drilling, however the
drilling was done during the driest season of the year, and groundwater is probably higher during the
wet season.
Foundations: For planning purposes, conventional spread footings cast atop the existing medium
dense silty sand or newly placed structural fill may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of
2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Foundations bearing directly on dense to very dense glacial till or
advance outwash can be designed with a bearing capacity of 5,000 psf. All footing subgrades should
be verified during construction.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 ii
Floors: The new structures will be able to use soil-supported, slab-on-grade floors. The floor section
should be designed to include a minimum 4-inch layer of washed crushed rock as a capillary break
and a vapor barrier placed on top of the capillary break layer.
Pavements: For preliminary design of access drives and parking lots, we recommend a minimum
pavement section of 3 inches of asphalt, over 4 inches of base course for car traffic; and 4 inches of
asphalt, over 6 inches of base course for access drives with bus and truck traffic.
Stormwater Infiltration: Stormwater infiltration at the site may be feasible in the advance outwash
soils, depending on the planned location and depth of infiltration facilities. For preliminary design, we
estimate an infiltration rate of 2 inches per hour. Infiltration is less likely in other areas with glacial till.
We recommend in situ testing at specific locations and depths where stormwater infiltration is desired,
in order to estimate long-term design infiltration rates. Observation wells should be installed in specific
locations of infiltration facilities, so that seasonally high groundwater levels can be measured.
On-site Soil Considerations: The on-site soils have a high percentage of fines (silt and clay), which
means compaction can be accomplished only within a narrow range of moisture contents. Therefore,
the contractor should take precaution to protect any exposed subgrades. Ideally, earthwork would be
scheduled for the summer and fall months, when drier weather would maximize the potential to reuse
on-site soils.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 1
2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS ...................................................................................................... 2
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 4 3.2 SOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 4 3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 6 3.4 SEISMIC CONDITIONS........................................................................................................ 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 7 4.1 SITE PREPARATION .......................................................................................................... 8 4.2 FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 10 4.3 SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS ............................................................................................... 12 4.4 FOUNDATION DRAINS ...................................................................................................... 12 4.5 BACKFILLED WALLS ........................................................................................................ 13 4.6 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ............................................................................................... 15 4.7 STORMWATER INFILTRATION ........................................................................................... 16 4.8 PAVEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 17 4.9 STRUCTURAL FILL .......................................................................................................... 19
5.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES ........................................................................... 21
6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 21
7.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................ 23
TABLES
Table 1 Recent Exploration Locations, Elevations, and Depths .................................................. 3 Table 2 Measured Thickness of Permeable Soil Layers ........................................................... 16
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 1
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Central Kitsap High School and Middle School Campus Redevelopment
Silverdale, Washington
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Central Kitsap School District (CKSD) plans to redevelop the existing Central Kitsap High School
campus, Central Kitsap Middle School campus, bus maintenance facility, and a number of adjacent
parcels(collectively abbreviated as CKHSMS). The high school campus is located at 3700 NW
Anderson Hill Road, and the middle school campus is located at 10130 Frontier Place NW in
Silverdale, Washington (Figure 1) (Latitude 47.65 N, Longitude 122.70 W).
Figure 2 shows the general layout and existing features of the site. The project site boundaries are
generally delineated by NW Anderson Hill Road and Frontier Place NW to the west, single-family
residences to the north, apartment complexes and single family residences to the east, and the
existing Central Kitsap High School building to the south. The Central Kitsap High School building is
not part of the current redevelopment project. The property planned for redevelopment encompasses
approximately 56 acres. The middle school campus is in the north end of the site directly south of the
NW Ballard Lane access road. The bus facility resides in the northeast corner of the site. Athletic
fields dominate the central and eastern portions of the project site. Numerous buildings and parking
lots are situated along the west side of the project site. The high school athletic track and football field
lie along the southern end of the project site. Along the site’s eastern boundary are two residential
parcels. Vehicle access to and from the site is provided by NW Anderson Hill Road, Frontier Place
NW, and NW Ballard Lane.
The redevelopment plan calls for demolition of all existing buildings except for the high school building
at the south end of the site. CKSD has developed three alternative schematic site plans addressing
the campus layout for buildings, athletic fields, stormwater detention facilities, parking areas, and
vehicle access roads. At the time of our report, CKSD had not selected a preferred site layout. In
general, all three schematic plans show a centrally located, combined high school and middle school
building, athletic fields at the north and south end of the redevelopment area, vehicle access drives
and exits on NW Anderson Hill Road and Frontier Place NW, student car drop-off/pick-up areas
adjacent to the new school building to the south and west, and bus loading/unloading areas next to
the northeast and northwest corners of the new school building. Parking lots will be situated around
the outer perimeter of the school building and new bus loading/unloading areas on the north and west
sides of the building. Stormwater detention facilities are planned in the southwest corner of the site.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 2
We assume the majority of the existing underground utilities will be replaced to accommodate the
planned redevelopment.
The preliminary conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our
understanding of the CKHSMS redevelopment, as derived from verbal information and schematic
plans provided by CKSD. Because this report has been prepared prior to finalizing the redevelopment
plan, additional geotechnical engineering will be needed to provide more specific information in
support of final design of foundations, pavement, retaining walls, stormwater management, and other
structural features.
2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS
Oour recent exploration of the surface and subsurface conditions at the project site was conducted on
August 15 and 16, 2016. We also reviewed and incorporated into this report our previous explorations
at the site. Our explorations and testing consisted of the following elements:
Visual surface reconnaissance of the site;
Fifteen borings (designated B-1 through B-15) advanced at strategic locations across the
campus redevelopment footprint to depths ranging from 16.5 to 26.5 feet below ground
surface (bgs);
Five hand borings (designated HB-1 through HB-5) advanced to depths of 2.75 to 4.3 feet bgs
at strategic locations within the high school football field;
Laboratory testing consisting of 10 grain-size distribution analyses, 10 fines analyses using the
#200 wash procedure, and 14 moisture content determinations performed on selected soil
samples;
Review of boring and test pit logs from previous explorations conducted on the project site by
Amec Foster Wheeler (AGRA, 1999; RZA, 1989, 1991; RZA AGRA, 1993, 1994); and
Review of published geologic maps and seismic information in the vicinity of the site.
Table 1 summarizes the approximate locations, surface elevations, and termination depths of the
recent subsurface explorations performed for this investigation. Figure 2 depicts the approximate
locations of these explorations and our previous explorations overlain on a topographical survey
conducted by AES Consultants, Inc. (AES). Appendix A presents the field exploration procedures and
logs, and Appendix B presents geotechnical laboratory testing procedures and results.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 3
Table 1 Recent Exploration Locations, Elevations, and Depths
Exploration Location Relative to Existing Site Features
Surface Elevation
(feet)1
Termination Depth (feet)
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
HB-1
HB-2
HB-3
HB-4
HB-5
New Frontier Junior High building parking lot
CKMS – East end of upper practice field
CKMS – Football field west goal post
CKMS – Top of slope, 65 feet east of baseball field backstop
CKMS – 43 feet east of food service building northeast corner
CKHS – 16 feet north of vacant home in driveway
CKHS – Northeast corner of fenced garden at vacant home
Kitsap Alternative High School building, 34 feet east of doorway
CKHS – Baseball field parking lot, 55 feet west of backstop
CKHS – 41 feet east of baseball field fence, northeast corner
Career & Technical Building, 27 feet southeast of southeast corner
CKHS – Baseball field, 114 feet southeast of first base
CKHS – 70 feet northeast of long jump, east end
Parcel north of middle school – driveway 43 feet west of building
CKHS – Parking lot west of football field
CKHS – Football field northwest corner at goal line
CKHS – Football field northeast corner at goal line
CKHS – Center of football field
CKHS – Football field southwest corner at goal line
CKHS – Football field southeast corner at goal line
183.5
195.5
184.0
172.5
156.5
173.5
158.0
131.0
157.0
150.0
132.0
153.5
134.0
179.5
109.0
134.5
134.5
136.0
134.5
134.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
26.5
16.5
21.5
16.5
26.5
2.75
2.75
4.3
3.0
3.2
1. Elevations are interpolated based on topographic survey provided by AES, dated June 16, 2016.
We selected the specific number, locations, and depths of explorations with input from the project
design team, based on locations of existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of
surface access, underground utility conflicts, and budget. We estimated the location of each
exploration by measuring their distance from existing features in the field using a tape measure and
scaling these measurements onto the topographic survey supplied to us by AES. We then estimated
boring ground surface elevations by interpolating between contour lines shown on the topographic
survey. Consequently, the data listed in Table 1 and the locations depicted on Figure 2 should be
considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our
measurement methods.
The explorations performed and used for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete
locations across the project site, and actual conditions at other locations could vary. Furthermore, the
nature and extent of these variations would not become evident until additional explorations are
performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed, we may
need to modify the conclusions and recommendations contained in this preliminary report to reflect
actual site conditions encountered.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 4
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
This section presents our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding
development, surface, soil, groundwater, and seismic conditions at the project site.
3.1 Surface Conditions
The surface conditions described below are based on our site reconnaissance on August 15 and 16,
2016, our review of aerial photos, and the topographic survey by AES dated June 16, 2016.
Existing Topography: Topography across the school property primarily slopes down from north to
south over a series of graded benches. The slope grades separating the series of benches across the
site generally range between 2H:1V to 3H:1V (horizontal: vertical). Cuts appear to have been
performed on the upslope section of the ground surface, with fill placed on the downslope sections to
raise grade and create the existing benches for the current development topography. Situated along
the majority of the eastern property line is a naturally vegetated strip of land that slopes down to the
east. The existing topography is shown on Figure 2.
Surface drainage: Drainage across the site is generally from north to south-southwest following the
site topography. However, the series of benches across the site appears to retain surface water within
the benches, where the surface water appears to infiltrate into the ground or is collected by a series of
catch basins. The collected stormwater is then discharged to the City of Silverdale stormwater system
on Frontier Place NW and NW Anderson Hill Road. At the time of our site investigations in mid-August
2016, the ground surfaces we encountered were dry except for areas on the athletic fields that
appeared to have been irrigated.
Surface cover: The predominant vegetation across open spaces on the site consists primarily of
grass. However, mature fir and cedar trees intermixed with shrubbery and grasses grow within the
southwest portion of the site surrounding the Alternative High School and Career and Technical
Building, on the residential parcel north of the high school athletic field, on the vegetated slopes along
the site’s eastern property boundary, on the two parcels north of Central Kitsap Middle School, and
around the perimeter of the bus facility. The site hardscape consists of asphalt parking lots, roadways,
bus loops, and walkways leading from the buildings to parking lots. A combination of concrete or
asphalt walkways were noted around the school building perimeter and for pedestrian access to the
athletic fields.
3.2 Soil Conditions
According to the published geologic map for the area (Polenz et al. 2013), soil conditions at the site
are characterized by Pleistocene Vashon Lodgment Till (Qgt) with Possession Advance Outwash
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 5
(Qgap) along the site’s western edge following NW Anderson Hill Road to the intersection of
NW Anderson Hill Road and Frontier Place NW.
Vashon Lodgment Till (referred to in this report as glacial till) consists of a mixture of clay, silt, sand,
gravel, cobbles, and isolated boulders, and can be brown in a weathered condition to gray in an
unweathered condition. Glacial till soils tends to be very dense and exhibit high shear strength and
low compressibility due to overconsolidation by ice during deposition. Glacial till soils can become soft
and unworkable when disturbed by excavation, stockpiling, and backfilling, especially when wet.
Possession Advance Outwash (referred to in this report as advance outwash) consists predominantly
of sand with some silt, clay, and pebbles. Occasional interbedded silt/clay layers, may occur. Advance
outwash is typically brown in a weathered condition to gray in an unweathered condition. Advance
outwash is typically dense with low compressibility due to deposition in front of advancing glaciers that
then compressed the sand after deposition. Advance outwash can be reused as structural fill.
During our explorations performed on August 15–16, 2016, we observed the following strata:
Topsoil and Organics: In general, all explorations advanced in non-paved areas encountered
approximately 4 to 6 inches of grass/sod over topsoil at the surface.
Existing Fill: Fill was encountered in borings B-2, B-3, B-5, B-10, B-12, and B-13. The
thickness of fill averaged 4.5 feet, however the fill was 8 feet thick in B-2 and B-13. The fill
consisted of medium dense, brown, silty sand with variable gravel content. HB-1 through HB-5
encountered 6 to 12 inches of drainage sand; over loose to medium dense, brown to gray, silty
sand to the full extent of the hand borings (2.75 to 4.3 feet bgs), except in HB-1 and HB-3,
where we encountered native glacial till below the fill at a depth of approximately 2 feet bgs.
The fill soils encountered within all of our explorations appeared to be derived from on-site
soils, except for the athletic field drainage sand.
Glacial Till: Glacial till soils were encountered across the site in borings B-1 through B-14. The
glacial till was composed of dense to very dense, silty sand. Glacial till was encountered to the
full depth of our borings, ranging from 16.5 feet bgs to 21.5 feet bgs. Glacial till soils extended
to 9 feet bgs in boring B-8, and to 23 feet bgs in B-11 until encountering advance outwash
sands.
Advance Outwash: Advance outwash composed of very dense, silty, gravelly sand was
encountered underlying the glacial till from 9 feet bgs to the boring extent at 16.5 feet in B-8,
from 23 bgs feet to the boring extent at 26.5 feet in B-11, and throughout the full extent of the
boring to a depth of 26.5 feet bgs in B-15.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 6
Review of lithologic logs from past explorations across the site show similar soil conditions.
Exploration logs are presented in Appendix A for the most recent as well as previous explorations
conducted at the site.
Select soil samples from our explorations were submitted for geotechnical laboratory testing. The
laboratory testing sheets presented in Appendix B graphically present the results. The geotechnical
test results produced the following key findings:
The fill soils had a fines (silt and clay) content ranging from 18 to 28 percent, with a moisture
content ranging from 5 to 13 percent. We interpret the fill soils to be derived from site glacial till
soils.
The glacial till soils have a measured fines content ranging from 14 to 37 percent and a
moisture content ranging from 3 to 9 percent. We interpret the moisture content of glacial till
soils to be near the optimum values for compaction, but highly sensitive to changes in
moisture content.
The advance outwash had a measured fines content ranging from 4 to 14 percent and a
moisture content ranging from 1 to 19 percent. We interpret the lower fines content to be
advantageous for stormwater infiltration as well as compaction as new structural fill.
3.3 Groundwater Conditions
At the time of our subsurface explorations (August 15 and 16, 2016), we encountered groundwater
only in boring B-15 at 18 feet bgs. However, some mottling and oxidation staining were observed
within some of the near-surface soil samples collected, indicating perched groundwater conditions
resting on or near the surface of the dense to very dense glacial till soils. Perched water was
observed on the high school athletic field at the contact horizon between drainage sand and
underlying soil subgrade and also retained in the topsoil directly below the grass surface. It appears
the perched water in the high school athletic field is influenced by seepage from the athletic field
underdrain and irrigation system.
Because our explorations were performed during a period of dry weather, the groundwater conditions
may closely represent the yearly low levels; somewhat higher levels probably occur during the winter
and early spring months. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to
changing precipitation patterns, construction activities, irrigation, and site utilization. Observation wells
would need to be installed to better understand the seasonal high groundwater levels for design of
stormwater infiltration and site drainage facilities.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 7
3.4 Seismic Conditions
The soils underlying the site consist of various thicknesses of medium dense fill placed during
previous grading, overlying dense sand(glacial till and advance outwash). Due to the lower density of
the previously placed fill, we interpret the site to be Site Class D, as defined in the 2012 International
Building Code.
Seismic Design Parameters: The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) requires use of Risk-
Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Ground Motion Response Acceleration for design
of structures. Based on detailed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hazard mapping for this site (USGS
2015), we recommend the following parameters for structural design, based on a design earthquake
with a 2 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years (return interval of 2,475 years):
Use IBC Soil Class D with:
SS = 1.39 g
S1 = 0.56 g
SDS = 0.93 g
SD1 = 0.56 g
Fa = 1.0
Fv = 1.5
Where g is the acceleration due to gravity.
Liquefaction Evaluation: The soils underlying the site consist mainly of dense to very dense glacial till
or advance outwash. Groundwater was encountered only in our boring at the lowest point of the
project footprint in the southwest corner of the site at a depth of 18 feet at the time of drilling, in dense
sands. We conclude that the risk of soil liquefaction occurring at this site under the IBC 2012 design
earthquake is very low.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents our preliminary geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations
concerning site preparation, foundations, floors, drainage systems, backfilled walls, utilities,
stormwater infiltration, pavement, and structural fill. ASTM International (ASTM) specification codes
cited herein refer to the most current applicable ASTM manual. Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) specification codes cited herein refer to the current WSDOT
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 8
publication M41-10, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2012
(WSDOT, 2012).
4.1 Site Preparation
Preparation of the project site for construction of the combined high school/middle school building will
include the following elements:
Temporary erosion and sedimentation control;
Removal of existing building;
Removal or abandonment of utilities within the planned expansion footprint;
Clearing, stripping, and grading; and
Subgrade compaction.
The paragraphs below discuss our geotechnical comments and recommendations concerning site
preparation.
Erosion Control Measures: Prior to disturbing the ground surface with earthwork, temporary erosion
and sedimentation controls should be implemented. The project civil engineer, in conjunction with the
Kitsap County Standards, should prepare plans and specifications to prevent erosion and runoff
during construction. The contractor will need to understand that design plans and specifications
represent the minimum requirements, and additional measures and modifications may be needed that
are specific to the construction activities and the weather.
Demolition: One of the first steps in site preparation will likely consist of decommissioning of some
utilities, followed by demolition and removal of the existing building structures, as well as the
surrounding pavement and curbs. Any associated underground structural elements or utilities, such as
old footings, stem walls, and drain pipes, should be exhumed as part of this demolition operation.
Excavations created during demolition should be backfilled and compacted with structural fill in
accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Pipes more than 2 feet below any future
excavations could be filled with lean mix concrete and left in place. However, if any significant
structure is planned over an abandoned utility line, the utility trench backfill should be evaluated and
possibly replaced to meet the proposed structural needs.
Subgrade Compaction: Exposed subgrades for footings, floors, pavements, and other structures
should be compacted to a dense, unyielding state. Any localized zones of loose granular soils
observed within a subgrade should be compacted to a density commensurate with the surrounding
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 9
soils. Any organic, soft, or pumping soils observed within a subgrade should be overexcavated and
replaced with a suitable structural fill.
On-site Soils: We offer the following evaluation of the on-site soils relative to potential use as
structural fill.
Existing Fill Soils: The loose to medium dense fill soils appear suitable for reuse if the soil is
near optimum moisture content, properly placed, and compacted to project specifications.
However, fill soils can vary greatly in fines, organic, and moisture content and should be
evaluated for suitability prior to use as structural fill. The fill soil will be difficult or impossible to
reuse during wet weather due to the high silt content, and aerating activities may need to be
performed during warm weather conditions to reduce moisture content to acceptable levels for
reuse of these soils as structural fill.
Glacial Till: The glacial till soils underlying the site appears suitable for reuse if the soil is near
optimum moisture content, properly placed, and compacted to project specifications. While
dense to very dense in the undisturbed state, glacial till contains a high percentage of fines,
and is highly sensitive to disturbance and softening in the presence of excessive moisture.
Laboratory testing indicates the glacial till soils at the site range from below to over optimum
moisture content for compaction, making reuse of these soils as structural fill difficult except
under ideal moisture and weather conditions. Soils with moisture content greater than optimum
will require aerating activities during warm weather to reduce the moisture content to
acceptable levels for use as structural fill, while soils with moisture content less than optimum
will require moisture conditioning to bring the moisture content to an acceptable level for use
as structural fill. Moisture content for the majority of the glacial till soil tested appeared to be
near optimum, and the soils appeared suitable for use as structural fill at the time of our
testing. During wet weather, these soils would be difficult or impossible to compact due to their
silt content and moisture sensitivity. On the other hand, if any of the soils become too dry,
water may need to be added to achieve near optimum moisture content for achieving proper
compaction.
Advance Outwash: The sands and gravelly sand advance outwash deposits were only
encountered at the low elevation of the site and therefore may not be an available source for
structural fill. However, where encountered, the advance outwash has a relatively low fines
content and therefore can be used in a broader range of weather conditions than glacial till.
Wet-Weather Considerations: As discussed above, most of the on-site soils available from site
grading will be difficult to use as structural fill during wet weather. Consequently, the project
specifications should include provisions for importing clean, granular fill in case site filling must
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 10
proceed during wet weather. For general structural fill purposes, we recommend using a well-
graded sand or gravel, such as “Ballast” or “Gravel Borrow” per WSDOT 9-03.9(1) and 9-
03.14, respectively, except that the percent passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve should be less
than 5 percent.
Permanent Slopes: All permanent cut slopes and fill slopes should be adequately inclined to minimize
long-term raveling, sloughing, and erosion. We generally recommend that no slopes be steeper than
2H:1V. For all soil types, the use of flatter slopes (such as 3H:1V) would further reduce long-term
erosion potential and facilitate vegetation growth.
Slope Protection: We recommend that a permanent berm, swale, or curb be constructed along the top
edge of all permanent slopes to intercept surface flow. Also, a hardy vegetative groundcover should
be established as soon as feasible to further protect the slopes from erosion due to runoff water.
4.2 Foundations
In our opinion, conventional spread footings will provide adequate support for the proposed building
structures if the subgrades are properly prepared. If foundations are located within the previously
placed fill, some excavation and recompaction may be necessary. We offer the following comments
and recommendations for the purposes of footing design and construction.
Footing Depths and Widths: For frost and erosion protection, the bottoms of all exterior footings
should bear at least 18 inches below adjacent outside grades, whereas the bottoms of interior footings
need bear only 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. To minimize post-construction
settlements, continuous (wall) and isolated (column) footings should be at least 18 inches and
24 inches wide, respectively. Greater depths may be considered to achieve higher soil bearing
pressure and lateral resistance
Bearing Subgrades: The following types of subgrade soils are anticipated, depending on location and
elevation.
1. Previously placed fill. It appears that the previously placed fill was compacted to a medium
dense state. Any new footing subgrades within the previously placed fill should be compacted
to verify density. Some over-excavation and replacement may be necessary to create a
suitable subgrade.
2. Structural fill. Newly placed structural fill that has been properly compacted, as described in
the Structural Fill section of this report, will provide a suitable subgrade.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 11
3. Glacially consolidated soils. The intact, native, glacial till and advance outwash soils are in a
dense conditions and will support higher bearing pressures than the above described fill.
Bearing Capacities: For preliminary design, we are providing general recommendations based on the
subgrade soil type. Once the location, size, and elevation of the foundations have been determined,
we could provide more specific bearing pressures for specific footing locations.
1. Previously placed fill. Once suitable subgrade conditions have been confirmed, the
foundations can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf.
2. Structural fill. Properly placed and compacted structural fill will also provide an allowable
bearing pressure of 2,500 psf.
3. Glacial consolidated soils. The undisturbed glacial till and glacial outwash will provide an
allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf.
For seismic design or other transient live loading, these pressures may be increased by one third.
Subgrade Verification: We recommend footing subgrades be verified by an Amec Foster Wheeler
representative before any concrete is placed. Footings should never be cast on loose, soft, or frozen
soil; slough; debris; or surfaces covered by standing water.
Footing Settlements: We estimate that total settlements of properly designed footings will be less than
1 inch and differential settlement between two adjacent footings would be less than ¾ inch.
Settlements would be reduced if the actual design bearing pressures are lower than our
recommended allowable pressures.
Footing and Stemwall Backfill: To provide erosion protection and lateral load resistance, we
recommend all footing excavations be backfilled and compacted on both sides of the footings and
stemwalls after the concrete has cured. The excavations should be backfilled with structural fill and
compacted to a density of at least 90 percent (based on ASTM D-1557).
Lateral Resistance: Footings and stemwalls that have been properly backfilled as described above will
resist lateral movements by means of passive earth pressure and base friction. We recommend using
the following design values, which incorporate static and seismic safety factors of at least 1.5 and 1.1,
respectively.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 12
Design Parameter Allowable Value
Static passive pressure
Seismic passive pressure
Base friction coefficient
300 pcf
400 pcf
0.4
Note: pcf = pounds per cubic foot
Base friction can be combined with the respective passive pressure to resist static and seismic loads.
4.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors
In our opinion, soil-supported slab-on-grade floors can be used in the proposed buildings if the
subgrades are properly prepared. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning
slab-on-grade floors.
Floor Subbase: All soil-supported slab-on-grade floors should bear on at least medium dense soils or
structural fill. Localized overexcavation and replacement of loose soils may be needed depending on
the location of the floor slabs. The condition of subgrade soils should be evaluated by an Amec Foster
Wheeler representative in case overexcavation of unsuitable soils is needed. Subsequent backfilling
and compaction of the structural fill should be observed and verified by an Amec Foster Wheeler
representative.
Capillary Break: To reduce the upward wicking of groundwater beneath the floor slab, we recommend
a capillary break be placed over the subbase. This capillary break should consist of a 4-inch-thick
layer of pea gravel or other clean, uniform gravel, such as “Gravel Backfill for Drains” per WSDOT
Standard Specification 9-03.12(4).
Vapor Barrier: We recommend a vapor barrier at least 10 mil thick be placed directly between the
capillary break and the floor slab to prevent moisture from migrating upward through the slab. During
subsequent casting of the concrete slab, the contractor should exercise care to avoid puncturing this
vapor barrier.
Vertical Deflections: Soil-supported slab-on-grade floors can deflect downward when vertical loads
are applied due to elastic compression of the subgrade. In our opinion, a subgrade reaction modulus
of 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used to estimate these deflections.
4.4 Foundation Drains
The building should be provided with permanent drainage systems to minimize the risk of future
moisture problems. We offer the following recommendations and comments for drainage design and
construction.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 13
Perimeter Drains: We recommend the new building structures be encircled with a perimeter drain
system to collect possible seepage water. This drain should consist of a 4-inch-diameter perforated
rigid pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of
the pipe. The gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines from
the surrounding soils. Ideally, the drain invert would be installed no more than 8 inches above or
below the base of the perimeter footings.
Runoff Water: Roof-runoff and surface-runoff water should not be allowed to flow into the foundation
drainage systems. Instead, these sources should flow into separate tightline pipes and be routed
away from the buildings to an appropriate location. In addition, final site grades should slope
downward away from each building so that runoff water will flow by gravity to suitable collection
points, rather than ponding near the buildings. Ideally, the area surrounding the buildings would be
capped with concrete, asphalt, or low-permeability (silty) soils to minimize surface-water infiltration
next to the footings.
Floor Slab Underdrains: Depending on site grading and building locations, floor slab underdrains may
need to be considered. For example, where subgrade excavations intersect a contact with underlying
dense glacial soils, there may be a need to intercept and drain perched groundwater. The need for
underdrains will be assessed once the final grades and structure locations have been determined.
4.5 Backfilled Walls
We offer the following recommendations for relatively short walls supporting grade changes at the
site. Underground vaults could also be designed as backfilled walls.
Footing Depths: For frost and erosion protection, concrete retaining wall footings should bear at least
18 inches below the adjacent ground surface. However, greater depths might be necessary to
develop adequate passive resistance and/or bearing resistance in certain cases. Flexible gravity
walls, such as gabions and modular block walls, should be embedded at least 8 inches below final
grades.
Curtain Drains: To preclude development of hydrostatic pressure behind the backfilled retaining wall,
we recommend a curtain drain be placed behind the walls. This curtain drain should consist of pea
gravel, washed rock, or some other clean, uniform, well-rounded gravel, extending outward a
minimum of 12 inches from the wall and extending upward from the footing drain to within about
12 inches of the ground surface. The curtain drain should connect to a 4-inch-diameter perforated
drain pipe behind the heel of the wall, and the drain pipe should discharge away from the wall.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 14
Backfill Soil: Ideally, all retaining wall backfill placed behind the curtain drain would consist of clean,
free-draining, granular material, such as “Gravel Backfill for Walls,” per WSDOT Standard
Specification 9-03.12(2). Alternatively, on-site soils could be used as backfill if they are placed at a
moisture content near optimum for compaction.
Backfill Compaction: Because soil compactors place significant lateral pressures on retaining walls,
we recommend only small, hand-operated compaction equipment be used within 3 feet of a backfilled
wall. In addition, all backfill should be compacted to a density as close as possible to 90 percent of the
maximum dry density (based on ASTM D-1557); a greater degree of compaction closely behind the
wall would increase the lateral earth pressure, whereas a lesser degree of compaction might lead to
excessive post-construction settlements.
Applied Loads: Overturning and sliding loads applied to retaining walls can be classified as static
pressures and surcharge pressures. We offer the following specific values for design purposes:
Static Pressures: Yielding (cantilever) retaining walls should be designed to withstand an
appropriate active lateral earth pressure, whereas non-yielding (restrained) walls should be
designed to withstand an appropriate at-rest lateral earth pressure. These pressures act over
the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination. Assuming a level backslope,
we recommend using active and at-rest pressures of 35 pcf and 55 pcf, respectively.
Surcharge Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be
increased to account for surcharge loadings resulting from any traffic, construction equipment,
material stockpiles, or structures located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height.
For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform horizontal pressure of 75 psf
acting against the upper 6 feet of the wall.
Seismic Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be
increased to account for seismic loadings. These pressures act over the entire back of the wall
and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For
preliminary design, we recommend these seismic loadings be modeled as uniform active
pressure of 6H psf (based on a wall height of “H” feet), assuming a level backslope and
allowing some deformation during the earthquake. These pressures could be refined during
final design when the retaining wall dimensions and locations are known.
Resisting Forces: Static pressures and surcharge pressures are resisted by a combination of passive
lateral earth pressure, base friction, and subgrade bearing capacity. Passive pressure acts over the
embedded front of the wall (neglecting the upper 1 foot for paved foreslopes, or the upper 2 feet for
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 15
soil foreslopes) and varies with the foreslope declination, whereas base friction and bearing capacity
act along the bottom of the footings. Assuming a level foreslope beyond the wall, the following design
values can be used for preliminary design, which incorporate static and seismic safety factors of at
least 1.5 and 1.1, respectively.
Design Parameter Allowable Value
Static passive pressure
Seismic passive pressure
Base friction coefficient
Static bearing capacity
300 pcf
400 pcf
0.4
2,500 psf
Base friction can be combined with passive pressure to resist the applied loads.
4.6 Underground Utilities
We expect that underground utilities for the high school and middle school campus redevelopment,
such as waterlines, storm drains, sewer pipes, manholes, and catch basins, will be included in the site
development. Our comments and recommendations concerning the installation of these utilities are
presented below.
Temporary Slopes: Configuration and maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary
excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety
codes should be followed. Temporary excavations should either be shored or sloped in accordance
with Safety Standards for Construction Work, Part N, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-
155-650 through 66411, when workers will be below the surface. For planning purposes, the soil type
classification and maximum inclination based on Part N of the Safety Standards for Construction
Work, WAC 296-155-66401 and -66403, is provided below.
Soil Type
WAC
Soil Type
Maximum
Inclination
Existing and new structural fill
Dense advance outwash
Dense glacial till
C
B
A
1½H:1V
1H:1V
3/4H:1V
Bedding Soils: Utility pipes should be bedded on an appropriate material that extends at least
6 inches outward from the pipe in all directions. For level or gently sloping pipes, we recommend
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 16
using a clean, uniform, well-rounded material, such as pea gravel or “Gravel Backfill for Pipe Bedding”
per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(3).
Backfill Soils: The on-site soils will be difficult to compact as utility excavation backfill unless the
moisture content is kept within a narrow range of the optimum moisture content. During the wet
season or during rainy periods, backfill material used for utility trenches and other excavations may
need to consist of clean, well-graded granular soils, such as “Gravel Borrow” per WSDOT Standard
Specification 9-03.14, except with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. Controlled-
density fill (CDF) could be used as a more convenient, but also more expensive, alternative to backfill
soil in any weather conditions.
Backfill Compaction: We recommend utility backfill soils be compacted to a density commensurate
with surrounding fill or native soils, as well as with the requirements of any overlying structures. CDF
backfill does not require compaction but should have a compressive strength commensurate with the
application.
4.7 Stormwater Infiltration
We understand it is desired to infiltrate stormwater in the southwest area of the site along the west
edge of the property where stormwater detention facilities are shown on the schematic site plans. We
reviewed chapter 7.3.4.1 General Requirements for Infiltration Facilities, in the Kitsap County
Stormwater Design Manual (Kitsap County 2010), (referred to herein as the Kitsap Stormwater
Manual). We have the following comments relative to these criteria:
Permeable soil layer thickness, and separation from the water table: Section 7.3.4.1.A of the Kitsap
Stormwater Manual gives a basic requirement of a minimum of 3 feet of permeable soil below the
bottom of the infiltration facility and at least 3 feet between the bottom of the facility and the maximum
wet-season water table.
Table 2 summarizes the measured depth to groundwater at time of drilling, and the measured
thickness of relatively permeable soil encountered above the groundwater table (or above a relatively
impervious soil layer).
Table 2 Measured Thickness of Permeable Soil Layers
Exploration
Depth to Groundwater at time of drilling (feet)1
Depth to top of permeable layer (feet)
Thickness of permeable layer (feet)
Lower boundary to infiltration (Groundwater or impervious soil)
B-15 18.0 0.5 17.5 Groundwater
1 Groundwater levels at time of drilling: August 16, 2016.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 17
On the basis of these preliminary measurements, the southwest area of the site exhibited the greatest
thickness of permeable soil layers above groundwater at this time. However, the groundwater was
measured during the dry summer season and is expected to be higher during the wet season.
Additional exploration and groundwater monitoring will be needed for final design.
Estimated Infiltration Rate for Preliminary Design: We recommend using a preliminary design
infiltration rate of 2 inches per hour for the southwest area of the site. This is based on a soil sample
collected 15 feet deep in B-15 drilled in the southwest parking lot. The laboratory grain size
distribution of this sample was correlated with Table 5.1 in the Kitsap County Stormwater Manual to
estimate this preliminary design rate.
In situ testing: Additional studies will be needed for final design. We recommend installing
groundwater observation wells to determine the groundwater table during the wet season. In situ, pilot
infiltration testing (PIT) is recommended to provide better estimation of the infiltration rates for final
long-term design. Tests should be conducted at the actual planned location of the infiltration facilities
and at the infiltrating elevation. These tests should be done once the location and elevation of the
facility has been determined, and the testing should be done during the wet season.
4.8 Pavement
We understand new vehicle access roads, parking lots, and bus lanes with student loading/unloading
areas will be constructed as part of the campus redevelopment work. Site access will be from NW
Anderson Hill Road and Frontier Place NW, with the bus loading/unloading area to the north of the
new school, parking lots to the north and west of the new school, and vehicle access roads
encompassing the perimeter of the school building. New concrete sidewalks will be constructed
across the site for pedestrian access to all school campus amenities. The following comments and
recommendations are given for pavement design and construction.
Soil Design Values: Soil design values for subgrade conditions were determined based on field
observations, visual classification, laboratory testing, and reference to typical values provided in the
WSDOT Pavement Guide, and the Kitsap County Road Standards. Based on grain size analyses
performed on representative soil samples, we estimate a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 20
for the underlying subgrade soils. We have interpreted the effective resilient subgrade modulus as
15,000 psi (average to good subgrade).
Traffic Design Values: The calculated pavement sections for the main driveway/bus loop and fire
lanes are based on an assumed traffic loading of 35 bus trips per 200 school days over a 20-year
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 18
design life. Sufficient car traffic volumes are included in the calculations. The calculated pavement
section for car and light truck parking areas is based on light to moderate traffic.
Flexible Pavement Sections: A conventional pavement section typically comprises a hot-mix asphalt
(HMA) pavement over a crushed rock base (CRB) course, over a suitable subgrade or subbase that
consists of granular structural fill. Based on the estimated design values, the following minimum
pavement sections are recommended:
Minimum Thickness (inches)
Flexible Pavement
Section
Passenger Car
Only Areas
Heavy Vehicle
(Bus) Driveways
HMA Class ½”
CRB
3
4
4
6
These values represent the recommended minimum thickness of HMA Class ½” asphalt. Other
combinations of pavement thickness could be considered upon request.
Rigid Pavement Section: A concrete pavement section typically consists of Portland cement concrete
(PCC) pavement over CRB, over a suitable subgrade or subbase that consists of granular structural
fill. Based on the estimated design values, a minimum rigid pavement section of 6 inches of PCC over
4 inches CRB is recommended.
Pavement Materials: HMA should conform to WSDOT Standard Specification 5-04. PCC should
conform to WSDOT Standard Specification 5-05. CRB should be an imported clean crushed rock
meeting the requirements for “Crushed Surfacing Top and Base Course” per WSDOT Standard
Specification 9-03.9(3).
Subgrade Preparation: We anticipate minor cuts and/or fills may be needed to achieve pavement
design grades. All pavement subgrades should be proof-rolled “wheel-to-wheel” with a loaded dump
truck to verify the density, but this is especially important for subgrade above areas where pre-existing
fill soils will remain. The proof rolling should be observed by a representative from Amec Foster
Wheeler. Any areas of soft, yielding subgrade disclosed during this proof-rolling operation should be
overexcavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill, as described subsequently.
Compaction and Verification: Structural fill used to achieve subgrade, subbase material, and base
course material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 19
density (ASTM D-1557), and all asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the
Rice value (ASTM D-2041). We recommend an Amec Foster Wheeler representative be retained to
verify compaction of the subgrade fill and base course before any overlying layer is placed. For the
subgrade, compaction is best verified by means of frequent density testing; for the base course,
methodology observations and hand-probing are more appropriate than density testing.
Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be noted that no asphalt pavement is maintenance-free.
The above-described pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average
level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely
be required. Furthermore, a 20-year pavement life typically assumes that an overlay will be placed
after about 10 years. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better long-term
performance, but would cost more initially; thinner courses would be more susceptible to “alligator”
cracking and other failure modes. However, pavement design can be considered a compromise
between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs, versus a low initial cost and higher
maintenance costs.
4.9 Structural Fill
The term structural fill refers to any materials used for building pads, as well as materials placed
under or against foundations and retaining walls; under slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, and
pavements; and for permanent fill slopes. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations
concerning structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs.
Materials: Typical structural fill materials include sand, gravel, crushed rock, quarry spalls, CDF, lean-
mix concrete, well-graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called “gravel borrow” or “pit-run”),
and mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any organic
matter or debris, or any individual particles greater than approximately 6 inches in diameter, and
should have no more than 20 percent fines (silt and clay that passes the U.S. No. 200 sieve).
Fill Placement: Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose
thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical vibratory compactor.
Other procedures may be appropriate for some materials.
Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557) as the standard, we recommend
structural fill be used for various on-site applications and compacted to the following minimum
densities:
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 20
Fill Application
Minimum Compaction
(percent)
Footing subgrade
Footing and stemwall backfill
Slab-on-grade floor subgrade
Slab on-grade sidewalk subgrade
Retaining wall subgrade
Retaining wall backfill
Asphalt or concrete pavement subgrade
Utility trench backfill under pavements/structures
Utility trench backfill
95
90
90
90
90
90
95
95
90
Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all structural fill
should be placed over dense, unyielding subgrades. The condition of all subgrades should be verified
by an Amec Foster Wheeler representative before filling or construction begins. In addition, fill soil
compaction should be verified by means of in-place density tests performed during fill placement so
the adequacy of the soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses.
Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their
grain-size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the “fines” content (the soil
fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in
moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently
compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points
above or below optimum. For fill placement during wet-weather site work, we recommend using
“clean” fill, which refers to soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or less (by weight) based on the
soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve.
Import Fill and Wet Weather Fill Considerations: As discussed in Section 4.1 (Site Preparation – On-
site Soils), the on-site soils would be difficult to reuse as structural fill during wet weather because of
high silt content and moisture sensitivity. Alternatively, we recommend using a well-graded sand and
gravel, such as “Ballast” or “Gravel Borrow” per WSDOT9-03.9(1) and 9-03.14, respectively, except
that the percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve should be less than 5 percent.
Concrete and Pavement Recycling: It is anticipated that the project will produce asphalt and concrete
rubble. These materials, or similar imported materials, can be considered for reuse during project
construction if they are pulverized to appropriate grain sizes. Recycled asphalt can be uniformly
blended with pavement base course materials in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 21
03.21(1)E. Recycled concrete can be substituted for up to 100 percent of base course materials below
pavements, including CSBC and gravel base. Recycled concrete should be used in accordance with
WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.21(1)B.
5.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Because this preliminary report has been prepared prior to design of the Central Kitsap High School
and Middle School campus redevelopment, an additional geotechnical study will be needed to
complete the design documents. After the specific locations, architectural layouts, and primary
structural details of the buildings and associated structures have been established, we should perform
a design-phase geotechnical evaluation. This type of evaluation may include advancing additional
borings within the specific building footprint, installing groundwater observations wells, performing in-
situ infiltration tests, conducting laboratory tests, performing geotechnical engineering analyses, and
preparing a Geotechnical Engineering Report. Once this information is available and we have
reviewed the design, we will submit a proposal to provide the design-phase study.
6.0 REFERENCES
AGRA, 1999. Geotechnical Engineering Report—Nextel Communication and AT&T Wireless Site No.
WA0285-3 (CKSD Bus Maintenance Facility), Silverdale, Washington. Prepared for Nextel
Communications. June.
Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Inc. (RZA). 1989. Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical
Evaluation—Proposed Additions to Central Kitsap Jr. High School, 10130 Frontier Place NW,
Silverdale, Washington. Prepared for Central Kitsap School District & GTde Weisenbach, Inc.,
March.
Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Inc. (RZA). 1991. Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report—
Central Kitsap H.S. Track and Field Relocation, Silverdale, Washington. Prepared for Central
Kitsap School District & David Evans and Associates. July.
RZA AGRA, Inc. (RZA AGRA). 1993. Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation—Central Kitsap High School Library Addition, 3700 NW Anderson Hill Road,
Silverdale, Washington. Prepared for Central Kitsap School District. April.
RZA AGRA , Inc. (RZA AGRA). 1994. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering/Limited Environmental
Study—Proposed Central Kitsap Performing Arts Center Linder Field and Science Center
Sites, Silverdale, Washington. Prepared for Central Kitsap School District. February.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 22
Kitsap County. 2010. Kitsap County Stormwater Design Manual (effective February 16, 2010).
Available at:
http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/documents/dev_eng/sw_design_manual/kc_stormwater_design
_manual.htm.
Polenz, M., Petro, G.T., Contreras, T.A., Stone, K.A., Legorreta Paulin, G., and Cakir, R. 2013.
Geologic Map of Seabeck and Poulsbo, 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Kitsap and Jefferson County,
Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and
Earth Sciences. October.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. Earthquake Hazards Program. Website link:
http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2005. 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/2005manual.html.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2012. Standard Specifications for Road,
Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2012. Publication M41-10.
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 23
7.0 CLOSURE
The preliminary conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the
explorations Amec Foster Wheeler performed and used for this study and on information provided for
the proposed project. An additional geotechnical study will be needed as part of the design process to
complete the project design documents. In addition, if variations in the subgrade conditions are
observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. We are available
to provide geotechnical engineering throughout the design process and to perform monitoring
services throughout construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this
report, or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Konrad H. Moeller, L.E.G. Todd D. Wentworth, P.E., L.G.
Senior Geologist Associate Engineer
Reviewed by: James S. Dransfield, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer
FIGURES
CENTRAL KITSAP HIGH SCHOOLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUS
SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT
Amec Foster WheelerEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.
11810 North Creek Parkway NorthBothell, WA 98011 1
FIGURE
6-917-18096-0
PROJECT NO.
1" = 2,000'SCALE
SEPTEMBER 2016
DATE
DR
AW
N B
Y: J
RS
CH
EC
KE
D B
Y: K
M
B-1
B-2
B-3B-9
B-10
B-11
HB-2 HB-5
HB-3
HB-1 HB-4
B-7
B-6
B-4
B-5
B-8
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-1
B-2
B-3
TP-2 TP-1
TP-4TP-3
B-3 B-2
B-1
B-1B-4
B-3
B-2
B-1
NW ANDERSON HILL RD.
NW A
NDERSON HILL
ROAD
FRONTIER PLACE NW
NW
BA
LLA
RD
LA
NE
FRONTIER PLACE NW
NW W
INDY
RID
GE
ROAD
CKHS BUILDINGS
CKHSFOOTBALL
FIELDCKHSBASEBALL
FIELDVACANT CKSDPARCEL
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLO
GY
ALTERNATEHIGH SCHOOL
DAYC
ARE
FOO
D S
ERVI
CES
CKMSBASEBALL
FIELD
CKMSFOOTBALL
FIELD
CKMS CAMPUSVACANT CKSDPARCEL
FRONTIERJUNIOR SCHOOL
CKMSPRACTICE
FIELD
BUS FACILITY
CENTRAL KITSAP HIGH SCHOOL ANDMIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUS
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
CENTRAL KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT
120' 180'60'0'
1" = 120'
6-917-18096-0
1" = 120'
SEPTEMBER 2016
LEGEND
1999 BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
1989 BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
1994 BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
1993 BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
1991 TEST PIT AND LOCATION
BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
HAND BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
B-15
HB-1
NOTE:SURVEY BASE IS "TOPOGRAPHY MAP" BY AES CONSULTANTS, INC.,DATED JUNE 16th, 2016.
Amec Foster WheelerEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.
11810 North Creek Parkway NorthBothell, WA 98011 2
FIGURE
PROJECT NO.
SCALE
DATE
DR
AW
N B
Y: J
RS
CH
EC
KE
D B
Y: T
DW
NOTE:
WE ESTIMATED THE RELATIVE LOCATION OF EACH EXPLORATION BYMEASURING FROM EXISTING FEATURES AND SCALING THESEMEASUREMENTS ONTO A LAYOUT PLAN SUPPLIED TO US. THELOCATIONS DEPICTED ON THIS FIGURE SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE PERMITTED BY OUR DATASOURCES AND IMPLIED BY OUR MEASURING METHODS.
APPENDIX A
Field Exploration Procedures and Logs
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 A–1
APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
Central Kitsap High School and Middle School Campus Redevelopment Silverdale, Washington
The following paragraphs describe the procedures used for field explorations and field tests that Amec
Foster Wheeler conducted for this project. Descriptive logs of our explorations are enclosed in this
appendix and locations shown on Figure A-1.
AUGER BORING PROCEDURES
Exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow-stem auger, using a trailer-mounted drill rig
operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Amec Foster Wheeler. An
engineering geologist from Amec Foster Wheeler continuously observed the borings, logged the
subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in
watertight containers and later transported to the laboratory for further visual examination and testing.
After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and
soil cuttings, and the surface was patched with asphalt or concrete (where appropriate).
Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- or 5-foot depth intervals by
means of the standard penetration test (SPT) per ASTM D-1586. This testing and sampling procedure
consists of driving a standard 2-inch-diameter steel split-spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a
140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through
each 6-inch interval was counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches was
recorded as the standard penetration resistance, or “SPT blow count.” If a total of 50 blows were
struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving was stopped and the blow count was recorded as
50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting standard penetration resistance values
indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils.
The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each
boring, based primarily on field classifications and supported by subsequent laboratory examination
and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, boring logs indicate the average
contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth.
The boring logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and
approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests
performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate
groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on
Project No. 6-917-18096-0 A–2
the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level
measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted.
HAND BORING PROCEDURES
Our exploratory hand borings were advanced with a 3-inch-diameter hand auger operated by an
Amec Foster Wheeler geotechnical specialist, who logged the subsurface conditions and obtained
representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to
a laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each hand boring was completed, we
backfilled the borehole with soil cuttings and tamped the surface. The relative density of granular soils
and relative consistency of cohesive soils were generally estimated according to the drilling resistance
encountered in each borehole.
The enclosed Hand Boring Logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in
each hand boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by subsequent laboratory
examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the
average contact depth. Our logs also indicate the approximate depth of any groundwater encountered
in the boreholes, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations.
NW
RA
ND
ALL
WA
Y
NW BUCKLIN HILL ROAD
NW ANDERSON HILL ROAD
OLD
FR
ON
TIER
RO
AD N
W
3 B-1
B-2
B-3
B-9
B-10
B-11
HB-2
HB-5
HB-3HB-1
HB-4
B-7B-6
B-4
B-5
B-8
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-1
B-1 B-2 B-3
B-1
B-4B-3
B-2
TP-2
TP-1
TP-3
TP-4
B-3
B-1
B-2
CENTRAL KITSAP HIGH SCHOOLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUS
PROPOSED BORINGS
CENTRAL KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT
400' 600'200'0'
1" = 400'
LEGEND
BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION(June 24, 1999)
BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION(March 6, 1989)
BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION(February 14, 1994)
BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION(April 19, 1993)
TEST PIT AND LOCATION(July 31, 1991)
Amec Foster WheelerEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.
11810 North Creek Parkway NorthBothell, WA 98011 A-1
FIGURE
6-917-18096-0
PROJECT NO.
1" = 400'
SCALE
SEPTEMBER 2016
DATE
DR
AW
N B
Y: J
RS
CH
EC
KE
D B
Y: T
DW
BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
HAND BORING NUMBER ANDLOCATION
B-15
HB-1
85%
50%
40%
30%
22S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
2.5-inches Asphalt
Very dense, moist, brown, gravelly, silty SAND(Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes with brown mottling
Becomes gray with no mottling
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/5"
50/6"
50/2"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
183.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
New Frontier JR High Bldg Parking Lot
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Drill
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
1
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
50%
50%
40%
30%
28S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND withgravel (Fill).
Very dense, moist, gray, silty SAND with gravel(Qvt - Glacial Till).
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/5"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
195.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
200 Wash(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKMS - E. End of Upper Practice Field
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
2
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
24
23
80%
70%
90%
30%
21S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Medium dense, moist, brown, gravelly, siltySAND (Fill).
Very dense, moist, gray with brown mottling,silty SAND with gravel (Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray with no mottling
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/5"
73
50/5"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
184.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKMS - Football Field W. Goal Post
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
3
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
10
40%
60%
40%
30%
35
37
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Very dense, moist, grayish-brown, gravelly,silty SAND with some gravel (Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray
Becomes with some gravel
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/6"
50/5"
50/4"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
172.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKMS - Top of Slope 65' E. of Base Ball FieldBackstop
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
4
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
20%
60%
70%
20%
18
34
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Dense, moist, reddish-brown, silty SAND withsome gravel and scattered organics (Fill).
Very dense, moist, brown, silty SAND withgravel (Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/6"
50/5"
August 16, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
156.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
200 Wash(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKMS - 43' East of Food Service Building NECorner
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
5
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
39
40%
50%
30%
15%
29
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
2.5-inches 5/8 inch Crushed Rock
Very dense, moist, gray, gravelly, silty SAND(Qvt - Glacial Till).
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/3"
50/4"
50/2"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
173.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
200 Wash(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS - 16' N. of Vacant Home within Driveway
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
6
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
40%
80%
30%
0%
22
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Very dense, moist, tan with gray mottling, siltySAND with some gravel (Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray with brown mottling
Becomes gray
Blow Counts Overstated - RockBoring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/4"
50/6"
50/5"
100/3"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
158.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
200 Wash(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS - Vacant Home at NE Corner of FencedGarden
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
7
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
20%
50%
50%
50%
15
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
2.5-inches Asphalt
Very dense, moist, grayish-brown, silty SAND(Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray
Very dense, moist, gray, silty, gravelly SANDwith some gravel and trace silt (Qva - AdvanceOutwash ?).
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/4"
50/6"
50/5"
50/5"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
131.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKSD Alternative HS Bldg - 34' E. of Bldg E.Door
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
8
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
90%
60%
60%
30%
22
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
3-inches Asphlat over 5-inches Base Course.
Very dense, moist, silty, gravelly SAND (Qvt -Glacial Till).
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
58
50/5"
50/6"
50/4"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
157.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS Base Ball Field Parking Lot - 55' W. ofBackstop
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
9
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
20%
50%
30%
40%
14
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND (Fill).
Very dense, moist, gray, silty, SAND (Qvt -Glacial Till).
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/5"
50/4"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
150.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
200 Wash(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS - 41' E. from Baseball Field Fence at NE.Corner.
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
10
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
25
40%
30%
60%
30%
50%
50%
29
4
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
2-inches Asphalt over 4-inches Base Course.
Very dense, moist, grayish-brown, silty SANDwith some gravel (Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray
Becomes brownish-gray
Becomes gray, silty fine SAND
Very dense, moist, gray, gravelly SAND withtrace silt (Qva - Advance Outwash).
Boring terminated at approximately 26.5 feet
50/6"
50/6"
50/6"
50/3"
50/4"
50/6"
August 16, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
132.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
27' SE of Career & Technical Bldg SE Corner
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
11
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
20%
80%
50%
20%
23S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND(Fill).
Very dense, moist, gray with brown mottling,gravelly, silty SAND (Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/5"
50/5"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
153.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
200 Wash(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS - Base Ball Field - 114' SE of 1st Base
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
12
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
12
15%
5%70
%30
%30
%
18S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
6-inches Sod / Topsoil
Medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND (Fill).
Becomes loose and gray
Very dense, moist, gray, gravelly, silty SAND(Qvt - Glacial Till).
Boring terminated at approximately 21.5 feet
53
50/4"
50/5"
August 16, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
134.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS - 70' NE. of Long Jump E. End
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
13
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
11
5
30%
90%
40%
30%
25S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
2-inches of 5/8 inch Crushed Rock.
Very dense, moist, tan with gray mottling, siltySAND with some gravel (Qvt - Glacial Till).
Becomes gray with brown mottling
Becomes gray
Boring terminated at approximately 16.5 feet
50/6"
50/6"
50/5"
50/4"
August 15, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
179.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
200 Wash(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
Vacant Parcel N. of CKMS - Driveway 43' W. ofBldg
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
14
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
70%
80%
70%
50%
60%
60%
80%
11
14
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4A
S-4B
S-5
S-6
2 inches Asphalt over 4-inches Base Course.
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND with some siltand gravel (Qva - Advance Outwash).
Becomes wet
Becomes silty SAND
Becomes saturated and dense
Becomes very dense
Boring terminated at approximately 26.5 feet
50/6"
50/6"
61
64
57
August 16, 2016CatheadHSA
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
109.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
200 Wash(% fines shown)
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
Groundwater level attime of drilling
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
FC
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS Parking Lot W. of Football Field byAnderson Hill Rd
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
Geologic Dril
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
2.00-inch ODsplit-spoon sampler
15
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
CK
SD
BO
RIN
GS
1 T
HR
OU
GH
15.
GP
J
BO
TH
ELL
GE
O 2
010
B&
TP
.GD
T
PR
INT
DA
TE
9/2
1/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
41
G-1
G-2
G-3
4-inches Grass / Topsoil
Drainage SAND
Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND(Fill).
Seepage at contact zone
Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, silty SAND (Qvt -Glacial Till).
Boring terminated at approximately 2.75 feet
August 16, 2016N/AHand Auger
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
134.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
10 20 30 40
Perched water level attime of drilling
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
KHM
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS Football Field NW Corner - Goal Line
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
KHM
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
Grab Sample
HB-01
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
HA
ND
BO
RIN
G L
OG
S.G
PJ
B
OT
HE
LL G
EO
201
0 B
&T
P.G
DT
P
RIN
TD
AT
E 1
0/18
/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
G-1
G-2
4-inches Grass / Topsoil
Drainage SAND
Loose, moist, brownish-gray, mottled, siltySAND with some gravel (Fill)
***Obstruction at 2.75 Feet - End of Boring***
Boring terminated at approximately 2.75 feet
August 16, 2016N/AHand Auger
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
134.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
KHM
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS Football Field NE Corner - Goal Line
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
KHM
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
Grab Sample
HB-02
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
HA
ND
BO
RIN
G L
OG
S.G
PJ
B
OT
HE
LL G
EO
201
0 B
&T
P.G
DT
P
RIN
TD
AT
E 1
0/18
/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
G-1
G-2
G-3
6-inches Grass / Topsoil intermixed withDrainage Sand
Irregation water trapped in topsoil mix
Drainage SAND
Loose, moist, brownish-gray, silty SAND withsome gravel (Fill)
Loose to medium dense, moist, gray, siltySAND with some gravel (Qvt - Glacial Till?)
Boring terminated at approximately 4.3 feet
August 16, 2016N/AHand Auger
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
136.0 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
10 20 30 40
Perched water level attime of drilling
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
KHM
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS Center of Football Field - 50yd Line
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
KHM
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
Grab Sample
HB-03
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
HA
ND
BO
RIN
G L
OG
S.G
PJ
B
OT
HE
LL G
EO
201
0 B
&T
P.G
DT
P
RIN
TD
AT
E 1
0/18
/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
18
G-1
G-2
G-3
4-inches Grass / Topsoil
Drainage SAND
Medium dense, gray, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill)
Seepage at contact zone
Becomes brownish-gray with occasionalorganics - rootlets/wood
Boring terminated at approximately 3 feet
August 16, 2016N/AHand Auger
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
134.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
Grain SizeAnalysis(% fines shown)
10 20 30 40
Perched water level attime of drilling
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
KHM
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS Football Field SW Corner - Goal Line
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
KHM
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
Grab Sample
HB-04
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
HA
ND
BO
RIN
G L
OG
S.G
PJ
B
OT
HE
LL G
EO
201
0 B
&T
P.G
DT
P
RIN
TD
AT
E 1
0/18
/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
G-1
G-2
4-inches Grass / Topsoil
Drainage SAND
Loose, moist, gray, gravelly, silty SAND (Fill)
Boring terminated at approximately 3.2 feet
August 16, 2016N/AHand Auger
Page 1
of 1
6-917-18096-0
134.5 feet US
CS
/US
GS
GR
AP
HIC
S
Other
PROJECT:
TESTING
Date drilled:
JOB No.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
0
5
SA
MP
LEN
UM
BE
R
Hammer Type:
10 20 30 40
No groundwaterencountered
0
DE
PT
H(f
eet)
KHM
Blows per footStandard
50
CKHS Football Field SE Corner - Goal Line
Logged By:
LEGEND
Drilling Method:
SA
MP
LET
YP
E
Drilled by:
BORING No.
KHM
Central Kitsap HS & MS Campus
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
Grab Sample
HB-05
Location:Approximate ground surface elevation:
Soil Description
11810 North Creek Parkway NBothell, WA 98011
BO
TH
ELL
_GE
O_2
015
.GLB
B
OT
HE
LL_L
OG
FO
RM
AT
201
2
HA
ND
BO
RIN
G L
OG
S.G
PJ
B
OT
HE
LL G
EO
201
0 B
&T
P.G
DT
P
RIN
TD
AT
E 1
0/18
/16
MOISTURE CONTENT
20 40 60 80
Liquid Limit
Blows over inches#/#
100
Plastic Limit
0
1991
1991
1991
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results
Project No. 6-917-18064-0 B–1
APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
Central Kitsap High School and Middle School Campus Redevelopment Silverdale, Washington
The following paragraphs describe procedures associated with the laboratory tests conducted for this
project. Graphical results of certain laboratory tests are enclosed in this appendix.
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
Visual soil classifications were conducted on all samples in the field and on selected samples in the
laboratory. All soils were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System,
which includes color, relative moisture content, primary soil type (based on grain size), and any
accessory soil types. The resulting soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs contained
in Appendix A.
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION PROCEDURES
Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples to aid in identification and
correlation of soil types. All determinations were made in general accordance with ASTM D-2216. The
results of these tests are shown on the exploration logs contained in Appendix A.
GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
A grain-size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular sample.
Grain-size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D-
422. The results of these tests are presented on the enclosed grain-size distribution graphs and were
used in soil classifications shown on the exploration logs contained in Appendix A.
200-WASH PROCEDURES
A 200-wash is a procedure in which the fine-grained soil fraction is separated from the sand and
gravel by washing the soil on a U.S. No. 200 Sieve. A 200-wash was performed on selected soil
samples obtained from our borings in general accordance with ASTM D-1140, Test Method for
Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75-m) Sieve. The results of these analyses were
used in soil classifications shown on the exploration logs presented in Appendix A.
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sand with gravelAs Received Moisture: 9.2%1.25"
1"3/4"5/8"1/2"3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.095.395.395.394.390.484.280.370.563.956.745.934.222.4
NP NV
9.2904 6.7329 0.54490.2996 0.1206
SM A-2-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-1, S-1Depth: 2.5-4.0 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 4.7 15.0 9.8 13.8 34.3 22.4
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sandAs Received Moisture: 12.1%1/2"
3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.095.591.187.877.369.360.546.833.020.8
NP NV
5.7417 3.7952 0.41530.2796 0.1306
SM A-2-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-3, S-1Depth: 2.5-4.0 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 12.2 10.5 16.8 39.7 20.8
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sandAs Received Moisture: 7.0%1"
3/4"5/8"1/2"3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.094.593.392.590.888.987.683.179.173.262.850.135.4
NP NV
8.0922 2.8948 0.22310.1495
SM A-2-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-4, S-2Depth: 5-6.5 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 5.5 6.9 4.5 9.9 37.8 35.4
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sandAs Received Moisture: 7.7%5/8"
1/2"3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.097.596.092.390.685.881.775.764.951.536.5
NP NV
4.2216 1.7052 0.20690.1408
SM A-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-4, S-3Depth: 10-11.5 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 9.4 4.8 10.1 39.2 36.5
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sandAs Received Moisture: 8.5%3/4"
5/8"1/2"3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.098.297.694.591.489.384.279.372.060.447.834.2
NP NV
5.2014 2.3313 0.24640.1649
SM A-2-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-5, S-3Depth: 10-11.5 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 10.7 5.1 12.2 37.8 34.2
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sand with gravelAs Received Moisture: 4.7%3/4"
5/8"1/2"3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.097.694.190.284.980.970.964.252.634.723.615.2
NP NV
9.4027 6.4033 0.59730.3909 0.2098
SM A-2-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-8, S-3Depth: 10-11.5 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 19.1 10.0 18.3 37.4 15.2
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sand with gravelAs Received Moisture: 5.8%1"
3/4"5/8"1/2"3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.096.492.388.481.975.472.164.658.148.839.431.422.3
NP NV
13.9253 10.9039 1.05310.4562 0.1360
SM A-1-b
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-9, S-2Depth: 5-6.5 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 3.6 24.3 7.5 15.8 26.5 22.3
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sandAs Received Moisture: 6.6%1/2"
3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.095.991.990.084.379.572.059.143.928.5
NP NV
4.7143 2.2209 0.25810.1851 0.0809
SM A-2-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-11, S-3Depth: 10-11.5 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 10.0 5.7 12.3 43.5 28.5
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: Ryan G Checked By: Jeff W
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/14/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Poorly graded sand with gravelAs Received Moisture: 0.6%1"
3/4"5/8"1/2"3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.094.993.088.484.378.473.358.445.331.215.97.54.0
NP NV
13.6798 10.1238 2.21011.1544 0.4064 0.24090.1846 11.97 0.40
SP A-1-b
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-11, S-6Depth: 25-26.5 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 5.1 21.6 14.9 27.2 27.2 4.0
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
3/8
in.
#4
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Mountlake Terrace, WA
9/19/2016
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Poorly graded sand with siltAs Received Moisture: 5.2%1/2"
3/8"1/4"#4
#10#20#40#60#100#200
100.099.898.296.588.176.664.443.223.111.1
NP NV
2.3471 1.5800 0.37330.2919 0.1830 0.1027
SP-SM A-2-4(0)
ASTM: C136, D1140, D2216Sampled: 8/31/16Sampled By: Konrad M. & Frank C.
Central Kitsap School District
Central Kitsap HS/MS
6-917-18096-0
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: B-15, S-4ADepth: 15-16 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 3.5 8.4 23.7 53.3 11.1
6 in
.
3 in
.
2 in
.
1½
in.
1 in
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8
in.
#4
#1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
00
#1
40
#2
00
Particle Size Distribution Report
MOISTURE CONTENT AND MINUS 200 WASH
ASTM: D2216 D1140
Job Name: Central Kitsap HS/MS Client: Central Kitsap School District
Job Number: 6-917-18096-0 Sample Date: 8/31/2016
Date: 9/14/2016 Sampled By: Frank C. & Konrad M.
Exploration: B-1 B-2 B-2 B-3 B-5 B-5 B-6 B-6 B-7 B-7
Sample Number: S-2 S-1 S-2 S-2 S-1 S-2 S-1 S-2 S-1 S-2
Depth: 5-6.5 2.5-4 5-6.5 5-6.5 2.5-4 5-6.5 2.5-4 5-6.5 2.5-4 5-6.5
% Moisture 7.6% 7.6% 9.0% 8.6% 6.2% 5.8% 6.1% 7.5% 3.0% 4.7%
% -200 Wash N/A 27.65% N/A N/A 17.10% N/A N/A 29.09% N/A 21.80%
Exploration: B-10 B-11 B-12 B-12 B-13 B-13 B-14 B-14 B-15 B-15
Sample Number: S-2 S-1 S-1 S-2 S-1 S-2 S1 S-2 S-3 S-4B
Depth: 5-6.5 2.5-4 2.5-4 5-6.5 2.5-4 5-6.5 2.5-4 5-6.5 10-11.5 15-16.5
% Moisture 3.2% 4.5% 10.1% 9.2% 6.6% 8.5% 6.0% 7.2% 3.3% 14.1%
% -200 Wash 13.59% N/A 23.02% N/A 17.69% N/A 24.94% N/A N/A N/A
Exploration: B-15 HB-3 HB-4 HB-5
Sample Number: S-5 G-3 G-3 G-2
Depth: 20-21.5 2-4.0 2.5-3 2-3.0
% Moisture 18.7% 5.2% 13.0% 7.4%
% -200 Wash 13.97% N/A 17.95% N/A
Tested By: Jeff W.
Reveiwed By: Dave D.
Respectfully submitted,
By: Jeff Ward